Prepared for · Document Control Summary Document Revisions Report Title Copping RDS SGWMP Report,...

COPPING RDS SURFACE & GROUNDWATER

MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

SIX-MONTHLY EVENT, July 2019

Prepared for:

Southern Waste Solutions

August 2019

Document Control Summary

Document Revisions

Report Title Copping RDS SGWMP Report, Six-monthly Event, July

2019

Project Manager Dr Terry Walker

AquaSci Reference T001 CRDS SGWMP 2018-2019

Electronic File Name Status Prepared by Authorised Date

T001-RE35-CoppingRDS-SGWMP-R-SME-July-2019-DR1

DR1 Dr T. Walker Dr T. Walker 28 Aug 2019

T001-RE35-CoppingRDS-SGWMP-R-SME-July-2019-FR

FR Dr T Walker Dr T. Walker 29 Aug 2019

Document Distribution

Electronic File Name Status Issued to Format Issued by

T001-RE35-CoppingRDS-SGWMP-R-SME-July-2019-DR1

DR1 Ms C. Bell

Southern Waste Solutions Word

Dr T. Walker

28 Aug 2019

T001-RE35-CoppingRDS-SGWMP-R-SME-July-2019-FR

FR Ms C. Bell

Southern Waste Solutions pdf

Dr T. Walker

29 Aug 2019

For further information on this report, contact:

Name: Dr Terry Walker

Title: Principal

Phone: 03 6231 1355

Mobile: 0409 863 590

E-mail: [email protected]

www.aquasci.com.au

AquaSci Report: AquaSci (2019f). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Report Six-monthly Event July 2019. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 -

54, Appendices A – G.

Cover Photo: Dr Terry Walker, 16 July 2019

Top: SS6, pool downstream of sill. Below: C-Cell

© AquaSci 2019

This document contains confidential information intended for the sole use of AquaSci’s client and may be published or

circulated to third parties at the sole discretion of the client.

The information presented in this document is deemed by AquaSci to be reliable and correct at the time of writing, but no

guarantees are made in respect of the accuracy or completeness of source information. As this document has been

compiled to address the specific needs of our client in respect of their current project, it may not necessarily address the

needs of purposes of third parties. Third parties acting on this information do so entirely at their own risk and AquaSci and

its employees accept no liability for any losses or damages incurred as a result of actions taken (or not taken) on the basis

of information contained herein.

Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, 2019

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1

2 MONITORING SITES ................................................................................................................. 2

3 WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES ................................................................................................ 4

4 RESULTS AND COMMENTS ..................................................................................................... 7

4.1 RAINFALL ............................................................................................................................... 7 4.2 LEACHATE/NON-LEACHATE RATIOS ......................................................................................... 9

4.3 SURFACE SITES ..................................................................................................................... 9 4.4 GROUNDWATER SITES .......................................................................................................... 15

4.5 PERFLUOROALKYL AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES (PFAS) ......................................... 17

5 OVERALL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... 20

6 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 22

APPENDIX A: SS RESULTS SUMMARY TABLES ......................................................................... 28

APPENDIX B: BH RESULTS SUMMARY TABLES ......................................................................... 31

APPENDIX C: PFAS RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 35

APPENDIX D: SITE LOCATIONS/DESCRIPTIONS ........................................................................ 38

APPENDIX E: SS + BH L/N RATIOS ............................................................................................... 42

APPENDIX F: BORE SAMPLING DATA ......................................................................................... 46

APPENDIX G: SITE PHOTOS 16/17 JULY 2019 ............................................................................ 49

List of Tables

TABLE 1: PFOS AND PFOA DRAFT GUIDELINE LEVELS FOR ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION IN

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 5

TABLE 2: ANZG (2018) DGVS FOR ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND OTHER RELEVANT

GUIDELINES 6

TABLE 3: DATA SUMMARY CRDS SURFACE SITES FOR JULY 2019 12

TABLE 4: DATA SUMMARY CRDS GROUNDWATER BORES FOR JULY 2019 13

TABLE 5: DATA SUMMARY CRDS GROUNDWATER BORES FOR JULY 2019 14

TABLE 6: PFAS LEVELS IN SS1, 2017 - 2019 18

TABLE 7: MOST PREVALENT PFAS IN B-CELL LEACHATE AT CRDS AND 27 AUSTRALIAN

LANDFILLS (GALEN ET AL 2017) 19

Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, 2019

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: COPPING RDS SURFACE & GROUNDWATER MONITORING SITES 3

FIGURE 2: 2019 MONTHLY RAINFALL AND MONTHLY AVERAGES, COPPING (YAXLEY ESTATE) 8

FIGURE 3: DAILY RAINFALL AT COPPING (YAXLEY ESTATE), APRIL - JULY 2019 8

Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 i

Acknowledgements

The provision of information relating to this report by the following is gratefully acknowledged:

► Graeme French, Mick Barker (SWS) – on site assistance, background

information.

► Landfill operational personnel (Downer EDi Works) – on-site information and

assistance.

► Ms Fiona Hosking – field assistance.

Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 ii

Glossary and Acronyms

General ADWG Australian Drinking Water Guidelines ANZECC Australian & New Zealand Environment & Conservation Council ANZG Australian and New Zealand Guidelines, 2018 ARMCANZ Agricultural & Resource Management Council of Australia & New

Zealand DGV Default Guideline Value (ANZG, 2018) DPIWE Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council NRMMC Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council NWQMS National Water Quality Management Strategy TDGV Toxicity Default Guideline Value (ANZG, 2018) Sites BH Bore Hole (groundwater monitoring bore) BIA B-Cells: Irrigation Area Bores (BH12A and BH12B) CRDS Copping Refuse Disposal Site (= Copping RDS) CRT Carlton River Tributary – receiving waters for catchment including

landfill (SS6 and SS7) CLBP C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond (SS9) CLBP-SP C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond – Seepage Pit (SS8) CMLP C-Cell Main Leachate Pond (SS10) CMLP-SP C-Cell Main Leachate Pond – Seepage Pit (SS11) PLP Primary Leachate Pond (SS1) PLP-SP Primary Leachate Pond Liner Underdrain Pit (Seepage Pit) (SS4) PSWP Primary Stormwater Pond (SS3) PSWPD Primary Stormwater Pond Drain (SS5) SSWP Secondary Stormwater Pond (SS2) SSWP-SP Secondary Stormwater Pond – Seepage Pit (SS14) SHH Specific Hydraulic Head – standing water level in a bore SGWMP Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program SS Surface Site (surface water monitoring site) BAC9 B-Cells: Adjacent Cell 9 Bores (BH10A, BH10B) BNC9 B-Cells: Near Cell 9 Bores (BH10C, BH10D) BNC10 B-Cells: Near Cell 10 Bore (BH23) BPLP B-Cells: Primary Leachate Pond Bore (BH7) CLN C-Cell: Leachate Ponds Bore North (BH1) CLW C-Cell: Leachate Ponds Bore West (BH19) CSW C-Cell: Southwestern bores (BH14A and BH14B) CW C-Cell: Western bores (BH15A and BH15B) DBNW Downgradient Bore Northwest (BH2) URE Upgradient Reference Bore East (BH18A and BH18B) (C-Cell) URNE Upgradient Reference Bore Northeast (BH22) URS Upgradient Reference Bore South (BH13) URSW Upgradient Reference Bore Southwest (BH21) WBN Leachate Treatment Wetland Bores North (BH25A and BH25B) WBS Leachate Treatment Wetland Bores South (BH24A and BH24B)

Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 iii

Parameters Measured Al Aluminium As Arsenic BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene = VOC Cd Cadmium Cl Chloride COD Chemical Oxygen Demand CN Cyanide (Total) Cr Chromium Cu Copper DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon EC Electrical Conductivity E. coli Escherichia coli Fe Iron Hg Mercury LOR Limit of reporting K Potassium Mg Magnesium Mn Manganese Na Sodium Ni Nickel TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TRH Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons OCP Organochlorine Pesticides = Organochlorines (OC) OPP Organophosphate Pesticides = Organophosphates (OP) Ortho-P Orthophosphate or Reactive phosphate as P PAH Poly-aromatic Hydrocarbons Pb Lead PCB Poly-chlorinated Biphenyls PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkylated substances (see PFOA/PFAS) PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS Perfluorooctane sulphonate Redox Reduction-Oxidation Potential S Sulphur Soluble Metals Metals present following 0.45 µm filtration and acidification; often

used interchangeably with the term “dissolved metals” TDS Total Dissolved Solids = NFR (Non-filterable Residue) Total Metals All metals present, including those that are sediment bound. In

turbid samples levels may be much greater than soluble metal levels. In clean samples, total and soluble (dissolved) levels may be similar.

TSS Total Suspended Solids = SS (Suspended Solids) TN Total Nitrogen as N TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen = oxidisable N = organic N + total ammonia Total Ammonia Total of all forms – ammonia + ammonium as N TAN Total Ammonia Nitrogen as N TP Total Phosphorus as P V Vanadium VOC Volatile Organic Compounds Zn Zinc

Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 iv

Units m bgl Metres below ground level mg/L Milligrams per litre mV Millivolts (Redox Potential) org/100mL Organisms per 100 millilitres (Escherichia coli) µg/L Micrograms per litre µS/cm Micro Siemens per centimetre (EC)

Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 1

1 Introduction

The Copping Refuse Disposal Site (henceforth referred to as the CRDS) is a Category 2

Landfill (Tasmanian Landfill Sustainability Guide, DPIPWE, 2004) located approximately

3.5 km southwest of the township of Copping, south eastern Tasmania. Operations

commenced in August 2001. Construction of a Category 3 “C-Cell” has recently been

completed, and disposal of waste commenced on 19 November 2018 (C. Bell, pers.

comm., 29 January 2019).

The following report contains the results of the six-monthly sampling event performed by

AquaSci on 16/17 July 2019, together with summary tables and brief interpretative notes.

This forms part of the ongoing CRDS Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program

(SGWMP).

Surface and groundwater monitoring commenced at the CRDS in 2001 and is performed

quarterly. Previous water quality monitoring reports are listed in the references section.

The current six-monthly event was postponed for one month pending the arrival of a rock

crusher on the CRDS site in June 2019 and the construction of all-weather tracks to the

new bores constructed in February 2019. Unfortunately, the first section of the crusher

did not arrive until 15 July, and access tracks were not constructed at the time of

sampling, which followed approximately 20 mm of rainfall over the previous 4 days.

Details concerning sampling methods and the parameters tested may be found in

previous annual reports (e.g. AquaSci, 2015a). Sampling is performed in accordance with

Australian/New Zealand Standard 5667 (Standards Australia, 1998) and specific

directions from the testing laboratory (ALS, Scoresby), where relevant.

Water quality samples were collected successfully from a total of nine of twelve surface

sites on 16 July and nineteen of twenty groundwater monitoring bores on 16/17 July

2019.

Both total and soluble metal levels were determined for all surface sites and groundwater

bore sites. A survey for 28 PFAS (per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) was also

performed at all surface and groundwater sites in July 2019. Previously, PFAS surveys

were performed in December 2017 and September 2018.

The C-Cell leachate pond seepage pits SS8 (C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond Seepage

Pit: CLBP-SP) and SS11 (C-Cell Main Leachate Pond Seepage Pit: CMLP-SP) were dry

and not sampled. SS9 (C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond: CLBP) was off line for cleaning

and not sampled. BH22 was inaccessible due to slippery conditions and earthworks and

also not sampled.


2 Monitoring Sites

With the completion of the C-Cell, the commencement of waste disposal in November

2018 and the construction of 10 new groundwater sampling bores, a number of surface

and groundwater sites have been renamed to better reflect their current functions and to

rationalise the acronyms used for reporting. However, site numbers have not been

altered and are consistent throughout reporting from the commencement of monitoring in

2001 to 2019.

The surface and groundwater monitoring sites sampled routinely, their locations, details

and acronyms are listed in Appendix D. Locations are also shown in Figure 1. Site photos

for July 2019 are presented in Appendix G.


Figure 1: Copping RDS Surface & Groundwater Monitoring Sites


3 Water Quality Guidelines

Until 2018, the ANZECC/ARMCANZ Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh

and Marine Water Quality (2000) were used to assess the likelihood of adverse

ecological impacts of the receiving waters of the CRDS. With these guidelines now

updated by the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water

Quality (2018) (referred to as the ANZG, 2018), DGV (Default Guideline Values) for

physico-chemical stressors are no longer set on a National basis, but revert to State

based, locally derived values. In the case of Tasmania, these have been derived by the

EPA Tasmania, based on data collected over a three year period (usually 2003 – 2006)

from 139 permanently flowing riverine sites. DGVs have been developed for High

Ecological Value (HEV) ecosystems and Slightly to Moderately Disturbed (SMD)

ecological systems for four hydrological regions within Tasmania (H1 – H4) (Default

Guideline Values for Aquatic Ecosystems of Tasmanian Inland Waters, EPA Tasmania,

epa.tas.gov.au, Sourced 2019).

The CRT (CRDS receiving waters) is a moderately impacted perennial stream. For the

purposes of this report, the annual, Region H2 DGVs have been applied as the most

appropriate of the guidelines currently available (Table 2). Nonetheless, these are less

than ideal with the CRDS not within this region. The issue of the most appropriate locally

derived DGVs for the CRT into the future is currently under examination. Potential locally

derived DGVs include those for the Carlton River itself (DPIW, 2008), and the use of the

19 years data collected from both SS6 and SS7 on the CRT as part of the CRDS

SGWMP. The outcome of this review will be published as a separate report by AquaSci.

Toxicity DGVs remain set nationally (ANZG, 2018), and differ little from those within the

ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines, although a number are under review.

As in the past, when the CRT is flowing and can be sampled, the actual effects of all

discharges are assessed through comparisons in water quality between SS6, the

reference site upstream of the CRDS, and SS7, the test site downstream of the CRDS.

Where differences are detected, the various water quality guidelines (e.g. ecosystem

protection, irrigation and stock water) are applied to assist in the assessment of the

likelihood of adverse environmental impacts. Where these are likely, further investigation

may be undertaken, including additional sampling.

For management purposes, to determine if any surface discharge from the landfill site to

the CRT has the potential to be deleterious (whether or not discharge actually does

occur), the levels of key parameters at surface sites may be compared to those at SS6,

the upstream control site on the CRT, or where relevant, with ANZG (2018) or EPA

Tasmania (2019) DGVs. However, it should be noted that strictly the ecosystem

protection guidelines refer only to water quality within the CRT itself.

Currently, there are no water quality guideline threshold values for groundwaters and

groundwater protection strategies are poorly developed in Australia

(ARMCANZ/ANZECC, 1995). The principal reason for monitoring groundwater at the


CRDS site is to ensure that leachate does not enter and contaminate groundwater, and

background water quality is not compromised. In the event that this did occur, the surface

water guidelines for ecosystem protection may provide a useful baseline for the

assessment of the risk of potential adverse impacts should groundwaters discharge to

surface waters.

The application of other ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines for various agricultural

uses e.g. stock water and irrigation would be valid if groundwaters were abstracted for

these uses. However, this isn’t the case in the vicinity of the CRDS, principally because of

the elevated salinity of most groundwaters and the nature of landuses in the area e.g.

plantation forestry.

As part of a review of The Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine

Water Quality (ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000) in 2017, draft toxicity guidelines have been

formulated for PFOS and PFOA to provide protection for freshwater and marine

ecosystems (EPA Vic, 2017; CRC CARE, 2017b; HEPA, 2018). There was insufficient

information available to formulate guidelines for other PFAS. In addition, there is a degree

of uncertainty with the 99% species protection level for both PFOS and PFOA (CRC

CARE, 2017b; HEPA, 2018).

Guidelines have also been formulated for soils, terrestrial biota and human/animal health,

including drinking water and recreational waters. (DER WA, 2016; CDEE, 2016; DOH,

2017; CRC CARE, 2017a; HEPA, 2018).

A summary of the relevant draft aquatic guidelines for PFOS and PFOA is presented in

Table 1 below. These are sourced from the HEPA (2018) PFAS National Environmental

Management Plan. Those most relevant to the CRDS and the CRT are the guidelines for

the protection of moderately disturbed freshwater aquatic ecosystems, (generally the

95% species protection level), which are highlighted.

Table 1: PFOS and PFOA Draft Guideline Levels for Ecological Protection in Aquatic Ecosystems

Protection Levels

PFOS PFOA PFOS PFOA

(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)

0.00023 19 0.29 3,000 High Conservation Systems

99% species protection

0.13 220 7.8 8,500 Slightly - Moderately Disturbed


2 632 32 14,000 Highly Disturbed


31 1,824 130 22,000 Highly Disturbed


* Applicable to CRDS

Freshwaters Marine Waters


Table 2: ANZG (2018) DGVs for ecosystem protection and other relevant guidelines

Parameter

ANZG (2018)/ EPA (2019)

DGV

Aquatic Ecosystems

(Tas-SMD-HR2)

ADWG

(2011)

ANZECC/ARMCANZ

(2000)

Trigger Value

Agricultural Waters

pH 7.1 – 7.8 6.5 – 8.5 (corrosion) 6 – 9

Conductivity (S/cm) 850.8 <950 - <12,200 (s.d.)

TDS - 600 (palatability) <2,000 - <4,000 livestock (s.d.)

TN as N 0.726 25 – 125 STV, 5 LTV

Total Ammonia as N 0.018 0.5 (corrosion) -

TP as P 0.015 0.8 – 12 STV, 0.05 LTV

Orthophosphate as P 0.006 --

Nitrate 0.132 as NO3 : 50 (infants)

100 (>3 months age)

<400 livestock (as NO3)

Nitrite 0.002 3 (as NO2) <30 livestock (as NO2)

Total CN 0.007 (tox DGV free CN) 0.08 (free) -

E. coli

(org/100mL)

-

100 <10 - <10,000

(use dependent)

Chloride - 25 - >700 (foliar injury – s.d.)

Sulphur as SO4=

- 250 (sulphate) <1,000 stock (sulphate)

Sodium (Na) - 180 (aesthetic) <115 - >460 (foliar injury - s.d.)

Potassium (K) - - -

Magnesium (Mg) - - <2,000 cattle

Toxicant DGV Freshwater

Aluminium (Al) 0.055 0.2 -

Arsenic (As) 0.024 (AsIII)

0.013 (AsV)

0.01 2 STV, 0.1 LTV

0.5 – 5.0 livestock (s.d.)

Cadmium (Cd) 0.0002 0.002 0.05 STV, 0.01 LTV

0.01 livestock

Copper (Cu) 0.0014

2 5 STV, 0.2 LTV

<0.4 - <5 livestock (s.d.)

Chromium (Cr) 0.01 (Cr VI)

0.0033 (Cr III)

0.05 (Cr VI) 1 STV. 0.1 LTV

1 livestock

Iron (Fe) - 0.3 (aesthetic) -

Lead (Pb) 0.0034 0.01 5 STV, 2 LTV

0.1 livestock

Manganese (Mn) 1.9

0.5 (health)

0.1 (aesthetic)

10 STV, 0.2 LTV

Nickel (Ni) 0.011

0.02 2 STV, 0.2 LTV

1 livestock

Mercury (Hg) 0.00006 (inorganic)

99% sp. protection

0.001 0.002 STV and LTV

0.002 livestock

Selenium (Se) 0.005 (Total Se)

99% sp. protection

0.01 0.05 STV, 0.02 LTV

0.02 livestock

Vanadium(V) 0.006 (low reliability) - 0.5 STV, 0.1 LTV

Zinc (Zn) 0.008

3 5 STV, 2 LTV

20 livestock All units mg/L unless otherwise stated SMD = Slightly to Moderately Disturbed H2 = Hydrological Region 2 (Tasmania) STV = Short-term Irrigation Trigger Value (up to 20 years); LTV = Long-term Trigger Value (up to 100 years) s.d. = species dependent – limit varies with species


4 Results and Comments

Analytical results for the CRDS sites sampled in July 2019 are tabulated in Appendix A

and B and bore sampling information is summarised in Appendix F. In addition, the

following has been supplied to Southern Waste Solutions electronically for the entire

period of the CRDS SGWMP (2001-2019):

► Analytical reports.

► Time trended graphs for all sites and parameters.

► Data matrices for each site and all parameters since the commencement of

monitoring.

Due to their size, it is not practicable to include these in their entirety within monitoring

reports. The salient points concerning these data for each sampling site are summarised

and discussed in Sections 4.2 – 4.4 and Tables 3 – 7 below.

4.1 Rainfall

Rainfall data for Copping was sourced from the Bureau of Meteorology website,

www.bom.gov.au (Stations 92074 Copping to 2012 and 92153 Copping-Yaxley Estate

from 2012).

Monthly rainfall over 2019 at Copping was below long-term average levels in April and

May (Figure 2), but near average in June (68.4 mm; long term average 72.2 mm). Most of

the June rainfall occurred over a single event from 19 – 23 June (50.2 mm). Only 33.4

mm of rain fell over July 2019, much less than the long term monthly average of 72.2

mm. Most of this (22.8 mm) fell over 11 – 15 July, the 5 days prior to sampling (Figure 3).

Consequently, flows were visible over the entire PSWP spillway (SS3), in the PSWP

drain (SS5), the marsh creek and within the CRT, both at SS6 upstream and SS7

downstream. The waters of the PSWP drain, marsh creek and the CRT at SS7

downstream were turbid. The area of the proposed treatment wetlands was under

approximately 3 cm water (BH24A, BH24B, BH25A, BH25B) although accessible by

4WD. BH23 was surrounded by soft, wet clay, preventing direct vehicular access,

although sampling was performed on foot without purging. The access to BH22 above the

quarry was steep, slippery and subject to earthworks, preventing access.

http://www.bom.gov.au/


Figure 2: 2019 Monthly rainfall and monthly averages, Copping (Yaxley Estate)

Figure 3: Daily rainfall at Copping (Yaxley Estate), April - July 2019

13.4

45.6

30.8 31

42.6

68.4

33.4

61.1

52.6

62.7

59.5 58.7

72.2 72.2

79.2

61.863.4

70.972.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Jan

-19

Feb

-19

Mar

-19

Ap

r-1

9

May

-19

Jun

-19

Jul-

19

Au

g-1

9

Sep

-19

Oct

-19

No

v-1

9

Dec

-19

Mo

nth

ly R

ain

fall

(mm

)2019 Monthly Rainfall - Copping (Yaxley Estate)

Monthly Rainfall

LT MonthlyAverage

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1-A

pr

3-A

pr

5-A

pr

7-A

pr

9-A

pr

11

-Ap

r1

3-A

pr

15

-Ap

r1

7-A

pr

19

-Ap

r2

1-A

pr

23

-Ap

r2

5-A

pr

27

-Ap

r2

9-A

pr

1-M

ay3

-May

5-M

ay7

-May

9-M

ay1

1-M

ay1

3-M

ay1

5-M

ay1

7-M

ay1

9-M

ay2

1-M

ay2

3-M

ay2

5-M

ay2

7-M

ay2

9-M

ay3

1-M

ay2

-Ju

n4

-Ju

n6

-Ju

n8

-Ju

n1

0-J

un

12

-Ju

n1

4-J

un

16

-Ju

n1

8-J

un

20

-Ju

n2

2-J

un

24

-Ju

n2

6-J

un

28

-Ju

n3

0-J

un

2-J

ul

4-J

ul

6-J

ul

8-J

ul

10

-Ju

l1

2-J

ul

14

-Ju

l1

6-J

ul

18

-Ju

l2

0-J

ul

22

-Ju

l2

4-J

ul

26

-Ju

l2

8-J

ul

30

-Ju

l

Dai

ly R

ain

fall

(mm

)

Daily Rainfall - Copping (Yaxley Estate): April - July 2019

July 2019Sampling

Event


4.2 Leachate/non-leachate Ratios

The chemistry of landfill leachates is complex, and the breakthrough of leachate into

groundwater can be difficult to detect. Nonetheless, a number of changes are known to

occur, such as increases in the levels of “leachate” cations such as potassium and

ammonium relative to “native” cations such as sodium, calcium and magnesium. The

ratio of the concentrations of these ions (or groups of these ions) may be indicative of the

presence or absence of leachate, and are known as leachate/non-leachate or L/N ratios.

The use of ratios, rather than absolute values, allows comparisons between

groundwaters with different total dissolved solids concentrations or salinity.

Based on past data, the most sensitive indicator of CRDS leachate was found to be the

K++NH4++NOx/Na+ ratio (modified Mulvey Ratio), which is now utilised for reporting. L/N

ratios are presented in Appendix E for both groundwater and surface water sites. The use

of these ratios for CRDS waters was discussed in detail in AquaSci (2019b).

L/N ratios did not indicate the presence of leachate in groundwater at any bore (Appendix

E).

Although less sensitive in surface waters, L/N ratios have been found to be useful for the

detection of fresh leachate in CRDS surface waters. L/N ratios suggested the presence of

leachate only in SS1 (PLP) and SS2 (SSWP) (Appendix E). The latter was used

previously to store leachate while the PLP liner was refurbished. It now contains only a

small amount of rainwater mixed with residual leachate following the removal of stored

leachate back to the PLP. The soluble arsenic level was also indicative of the presence of

a low level of B-Cell leachate.

The leachate within SS10 from the C-Cell is of a different nature (currently petroleum

contaminated soil) to that produced within the B-Cells and the Mulvey L/N ratio utilised for

the latter is not applicable for C-Cell leachate.

4.3 Surface Sites

The results of the analyses of all surface site water quality samples collected on 16 July

2019 are presented in Appendix A and summarised in Table 3.

Parameter levels within the PLP at SS1 remained within historical ranges. The total As

level (0.25 mg/L) has remained similar to levels found over recent events and much lower

than the original spike in concentration detected in November 2012 (4.6 mg/L). This can

be attributed to reduced leachate flows from the capped cells containing the source

waste. The soluble As level was the same as the total level, indicating that all As was

present in the dissolved form.

Soluble As, Al, Cr, Se, V and Zn levels were all higher than the relevant ANZG (2018)

DGVs. No discharge occurs from the PLP to the external environment.

The L/N ratio did not indicate the presence of leachate in waters of the PLP-SP (SS4).


The total and soluble As level was very low (<0.001 mg/L) and less than the ANZG

(2018) DGV, also suggesting the absence of leachate. The discharge from SS4 appeared

to consist mostly of shallow groundwater originating from below the PLP.

Rainfall over the week prior to the sampling of the PSWP (SS3) on 16 July 2019, resulted

in stormwater flowing over the spillway, through the PSWP drain (SS5) and marsh to the

CRT just upstream of SS7. These waters were turbid with fine clay, although levels were

reduced as less fine sediment was trapped in the PSWP drain (SS5) and the marsh prior

to entry to the receiving waters of the CRT. Nutrient levels were elevated as expected as

the moderate rainfall preceding the sampling event had followed a dry period, although

they did not exceed historical maxima. Much of this can be attributed to the large

numbers of birds utilising the site. A range of total metal levels exceeded the ANZG

(2018) DGVs for ecosystem protection at SS3 reflecting the presence of a high level of

suspended clay. The levels of all of these remained within historical ranges. However, of

soluble metals, only the Cu level exceeded the relevant guideline indicating most of the

metals present were associated with sediment. This may also be the case for Cu since

very fine clay is a feature of the waters of SS3, and some of this is finer than the 0.45 µm

filters used for soluble metal determination.

All parameter levels in the PSWPD remained within historical limits at SS5. Water quality

was similar to that within SS3, indicating this was the source of most of the flow at SS5.

As usual, nutrient levels were slightly lower than in SS3 due to sediment trapping and

uptake by plants. Major ion and EC levels were a little higher reflecting other influences

including naturally saline groundwater discharges to the drain and also those from the

PLP-SP (SS4). Total metal levels reflected the presence of suspended clay. As in SS3,

the only soluble metal level to exceed the relevant ANZG (2018) DGV (0.014 mg/L) was

Cu (0.003 mg/L).

The marsh creek was flowing on 16 July 2019, with an EC of 1,336 µS/cm. This was

much higher than at SS5 (923 µS/cm), reflecting natural groundwater discharges from the

marsh between the CRDS and the CRT. This also contributed to a higher EC at SS7

(1,454 µS/cm) relative to SS6 (528 µS/cm) as did saline groundwater flushed from the

permanent pool just upstream of the Marsh Creek/CRT confluence (3,480 µS/cm).

The pool at SS6 on the CRT upstream of the CRDS was full, with a small but consistent

flow over the northern end of the rock sill on its downstream edge. Water level within the

pool downstream was low, however, indicating only a limited flow down the CRT to SS7.

Although TSS was low, the waters of the CRT were visibly turbid at SS6, from fine clay.

All parameter levels apart from TP (higher) remained within historical ranges but TN and

TP exceeded the relevant DGVs for ecosystem protection. As this reference site is

upstream of the CRDS, these are not attributable to CRDS activities. These parameters

have frequently exceeded the relevant guidelines in the past generally at ‘first flush’ times

when moderate rainfall occurred following a dry period or when water levels were very

low.

A constant flow of milky turbid water was present at SS7 downstream, with a depth of

about 30 cm. The waters were turbid from fine clay entering from the marsh creek and


from upstream. A significant proportion of the flow at SS7 appeared to originate from the

marsh creek rather than the CRT upstream. Sources include the CRDS stormwater

system through the PSWP drain, flows to the drain observed from the south and the

marsh itself. Consequently, a range of parameter levels were higher at SS7 than at SS6

including EC, TDS, pH, alkalinity, TSS, TN, TKN, nitrate, TP, and major ions (Cl, S, Na,

Mg, Ca). EC, TN, nitrate and TP levels all exceeded the relevant DGVs for ecosystem

protection. TKN, nitrate and TP all exceeded the previous historical maxima as did TP at

SS6 upstream. The latter was likely to be a result of the level of fine clay present; TP is

well known to bind strongly to sediment.

These differences in water quality between SS6 and SS7 downstream reflect the flushing

of rainwater from the marsh creek (including the marsh itself and the CRDS stormwater

system) to the CRT at SS7 following rainfall as well as the timing of sampling, which

occurred immediately at the end of a significant rainfall event. EC was significantly

affected by the partial flushing of saline groundwater that discharges to the permanent

pool just upstream of the CRT – marsh creek confluence. This source may also have

affected nutrient levels. Similar nutrient flushes were evident at the SS6 reference site

and are a natural feature of ephemeral systems such as the CRT. The CRT at SS7 was

dry prior to the rainfall event preceding sampling.

The makeup of C-Cell leachate in SS10 is currently variable as waste is added to the cell

and rainfall has leached through to the CMLP (SS10). Since waste disposal commenced

in November 2018, the CMLP (SS10) has been sampled on three occasions, although

only the recent July 2019 event has followed significant rainfall. TSS, TN, nitrate, TP and

DOC levels were all elevated in July 2019 and total metal levels were high, reflecting very

high TSS levels. Soluble metal levels were lower, but a range of metal levels exceeded

the ANZG (2018) toxicity DGVs including Al, Cd, Cu, Ni, Se and Zn. S dominated the

major ions present, unlike all other CRDS surface waters, which have been dominated by

Cl and Na.


Table 3: Data summary CRDS Surface Sites for July 2019

COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORINGData Summary - 16 July 2019 - S

Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) SS 1 SS4 SS10 SS11

PLP PLP-SP CMLP LHP2-SP

Historical Data 2001 - Mar 2019 2001 - Mar 2019 Dec 2018, Mar 2019 (2 Events) Dec 2018, Mar 2019 (2 Events)

Exceeding Historical Range None None N/A Dry - Not sampled

Rising Over Time Cl & S (g,v - from 2007) None N/A

Falling Over Time None None N/A

Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams EC, TN, TAN, TP, Ortho-P EC, TN, TAN, Nitrate (as usual) EC, TN, Nitrate, TP

Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams CN (sl), Sol. As, Al, Cr, Ni, Zn, V None Sol. Al, Cd, Cu, Ni, Se, Zn

Discharge to Environment No No No

Less Than LOR (not detected)Sol. Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg

TSS, Ortho-P, CN, Sol. As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe,

Pb, Hg, Se, VOrtho-P, CN, Sol. Pb, Hg

Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) SS2 SS14 SS9 SS8

SSWP SSWP-SP CLBP CLBP-SP

Historical Data (as CMLP from Dec 2018) Dec 2018 - Mar 2019 (2 Events) Dec 2018 - Mar 2019 (2 Events) Drained for cleaning Dry

Exceeding Historical Range N/A N/A Not sampled Not sampled

Rising Over Time N/A N/A

Falling Over Time N/A N/A

Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams pH, TN, TP EC, TN, TAN, TP

Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams None Sil. Al, Cu, Ni

Discharge to Environment No No

Less Than LOR (not detected)

TAN, Nitrate, Nitrite, CN,

Sol. Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, V, ZnTSS, CN, Sol. Fe, Pb, Hg, V

Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) SS 3 SS 5 SS 6 SS 7

PSWP PSWPD CRT-U/S CRT-D/S

Historical Data (post-2017) 2001 - Mar 2019 2001 - Mar 2019 2001 - Mar 2019 2001 - Mar 2019

Exceeding Historical Range None None TP TKN, Nitrate, TP

Rising Over Time pH? None None None

Falling Over Time DOC (g, since 2014) None None None

Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams pH, TN, TAN, Nitrate, Nitrite (as usual) pH, EC (low), TN, Nitrate, TP TN EC, TN

Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams Sol. Cu Sol. Cu None None

Discharge to Environment Yes Yes N/A N/A

Level > than at SS6 reference siteN/A N/A N/A

EC, TDS, pH, Alk, TSS, TN, TKN, Nitrate,

TP, Cl, S, Na, Mg, Ca

Level < than at SS6 reference site N/A N/A N/A Redox


Ortho-P, CN,

Sol. As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se, V

Ortho-P, CN,

Sol. As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se, V, Zn

TSS, Nitrite, Ortho-P, CN

Sol. As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Zn

Ortho-P, CN,

Sol. As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se, V, Zn

v = variable sl = slightly g = gradual


Table 4: Data summary CRDS Groundwater Bores for July 2019

COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORINGData Summary - 16/17 July 2019 - S

Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) BH13 BH1 BH10A BH10D

URS (13.5m) CLN (24m) BNC9O-D (7.8m) BNC9-S (7.0m)

Historical Data 2013 - Mar 2019 2001 - Mar 2019 2011 - Mar 2019 None - New Bore

Exceeding Historical Range pH (sl hgher) TN, TKN (lower) TN, S (lower) N/A

Rising Over time None Cl (since 2014) None N/A

Falling Over Time SHH, Na (g, since 2014) None Mg (g) N/A

Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams EC EC, TAN (sl) EC, Ortho-P EC

Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams None None None None

L/N Ratios Indicate Presence of Leachate No No No No


Nitrate, Nitrite, CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cu, Fe,

Pb, Hg, Se, V

Nitrate, Nitrite, CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu,

Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, V, Zn

Nitrate, Nitrite, CN, Sol: As,Cd, Cr, Cu,

Fe, Pb, Hg, Mn, Ni, Se, V


Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, V

Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) BH10C BH7 BH12A BH12B

BNC9-D (12.4m) BPLP (10m) BIA-D (21.6m) BIA-S (5.5m)

Historical Data None - New Bore 2001 - Mar 2019 2013 - Mar 2019 2013 - Mar 2019

Exceeding Historical Range N/A None Ca (sl. higher) SHH, S (sl. lower)

Rising Over time N/A None EC, TDS (g,v) EC

Falling Over Time N/A EC, Ca (g,v since 2014) SHH (g) None

Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams EC, TAN EC EC, TAN pH (lower), EC,TAN

Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams None None Mn (sl) None


Less Than LOR (not detected)Nitrite, CN, Sol: Cd, Pb, Hg, V

Nitrite, CN, Sol. As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb,

Hg, Ni, Se, V

Nitrite, CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb,

Hg, Ni, Se, V

CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Hg, Se,

V

Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) BH2 BH14A BH15A BH15B

DBNW (11.5m) CSW-D (21.5m) CW-D (25m) CW-S (8.5m)

Historical Data 2016 - Mar 2019 2016 - Mar 2019 (9 Events) 2016 - Mar 2019 (9 Events) 2016 - Mar 2019

Exceeding Historical Range Redox (higher) Higher : pH Lower : TN, TKN, TAN, S TN (lower) NS - insufficient recharge

Rising Over Time None N/A EC (g), DOC (g)

Falling Over Time EC, TDS, Cl, Mg, Ca (All g) N/A None

Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams EC, TN, Nitrate EC, TAN, Nitrate EC

Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams Sol: V None None

L/N Ratios Indicate Presence of Leachate No No No

Less Than LOR (not detected)CN, Sol: Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se

CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni,

Se, V

TAN, Nitrite, TP, Ortho-P, CN, Sol: As,

Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni, V, Zn



Table 5: Data summary CRDS Groundwater Bores for July 2019

COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORINGData Summary - 16/17 July 2019 - S

Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) BH18A BH19 BH21 BH22

URE-D (35m) CLW (8.4m) URSW (30.4m) URNE (20m)

Historical Data 2016 - Mar 2019 (9 Events) None - New Bore None - New Bore None - New Bore

Exceeding Historical Range None N/A N/A NS - Inaccessible

Rising Over time Na, Ca, ?K N/A N/A

Falling Over Time SHH (poor recharge) N/A N/A

Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams EC, TN, Nitrate EC, Ortho-P EC, Nitrite (sl)

Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams None Sol: Zn Sol: Zn

L/N Ratios Indicate Presence of Leachate No No No


Ortho-P, CN, Sol: Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb,

Hg, Se

CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Hg, Se,

V


Se, V

Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) BH24A BH24B BH25A BH25B

WBS-D (12.4m) WBS-S (3.0m) WBN-D (9.5m) WBN-S (2.8m)

Historical Data None - New Bore None - New Bore None - New Bore None - New Bore

Exceeding Historical Range N/A N/A N/A N/A

Rising Over time N/A N/A N/A N/A

Falling Over Time N/A N/A N/A N/A

Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams pH (lower), EC, TAN pH (lower), EC, TP, Ortho-P pH (lower), EC pH (lower), EC

Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams None None None Cr (sl), Zn




Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, V

Nitrate, CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb,

Hg, Se, V


Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, VTAN, CN, Sol: As, Cd, Fe, Pb, Hg, Se, V

Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) BH23

BNC10 (15.4m)

Historical Data None - New Bore

Exceeding Historical Range N/A

Rising Over time N/A

Falling Over Time N/A

Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams EC, Nitrite (sl)

Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams Sol: Zn

L/N Ratios Indicate Presence of Leachate No



Se, V



4.4 Groundwater Sites

The results of the analyses of all groundwater quality samples collected on 16/17 July

2019 are presented in Appendix B and summarised in Tables 4 & 5.

Apart from the bores sampled for the first time on 17 July 2019, water quality within the

groundwater bores tested generally remained within historical ranges, although TN and

some other N-nutrient levels were lower than usual in several bores including BH1,

BH10A, BH14A and BH15A. Soluble metal levels were very low across all bores, often

below the limit of reporting (LOR). Zn levels slightly exceeded the ANZG (2018) DGV for

surface waters in the new bores BH10C, BH10D, BH19, BH21 and BH25B. The Cr level

in the latter also exceeded the relevant guideline, although only marginally. The soluble

Mn level slightly exceeded the relevant guideline in BH12A and the V level in BH2.

The groundwater at the CRDS site is saline and slightly acidic. Hence EC in all bores

tested (2,347 – 8,300 µS/cm) exceeded the relevant EPA Tasmania (2019) DGV for

surface ecosystem protection (850.8 µS/cm) and pH was below the lower guideline (7.1)

in a range of bores (6.0 – 6.8).

Water quality and leachate indicators such as As and TAN levels, and modified Mulvey

L/N ratios did not reveal the presence of leachate in any groundwater bore.

Recharge was inadequate for sampling in BH15B, located in a temporary perched

aquifer. Recharge was also poor in BH18A and although water quality samples were

collected, they were very turbid with grey sediment.

Cromer (2018) suggested that the near Cell 9 bores BH10A and BH10B be deepened so

that one of them intersected the deeper sandstone at that site. In essence, this meant

deepening BH10B or adding an additional bore circa 12 m in depth, preferably the latter.

BH10A (7.8 m) has been a productive bore with an extensive water quality record

extending from 2011 and did not need replacement. Subsequently, two new bores were

constructed 25 m further from the cells, BH10C (12.4 m) and BH10D (7.0 m). During this

sampling event, these bores were sampled for the first time.

Water quality differed between the two shallower bores with EC higher in BH10D (8,300

µS/cm) than BH10A (6,500 µS/cm). TP and Ortho-P levels were higher in BH10A and

soluble Zn and Mn levels much higher in BH10D. The latter was also more turbid, and

importantly further from the landfill cells. As these bores are situated to detect any

leakage from the B-cells in the vicinity as early as possible, the closer they are to the

landfill cells the better.

It has been decided to retain all four near Cell 9 bores as two clusters: BH10A and

BH10B adjacent to Cell 9, and BH10C and BH10D 25 m further away (R. Casimaty, C.

Bell, e-mails, 28 August 2019). This will allow the tracking of any contamination plume,

should this occur in the future.

DOC levels have been historically lower since 2015 in a range of bores including BH1,


BH7, BH10A, BH10B, BH12A, BH12B and BH13, probably reflecting lower than average

annual rainfall. A similar trend was also evident for TN levels in BH1 and BH7, with the

latter also showing clear seasonal fluctuations in SHH over the same period; generally

SHH was lower in autumn.

The groundwaters of the four leachate treatment wetland bores (BH24A, 24B, BH25A

and BH25B) were all saline and somewhat acidic as is the case with other CRDS

groundwaters. BH24A (12.4 m) showed higher TAN level (0.082 mg/L) than the other 3

bores and TP/Ortho-P levels were higher in the shallow BH24B (3.0 m). The soluble Zn

level was higher in the shallow BH25B (0.012 mg/L) than the other bores (0.002 – 0.003

mg/L).


4.5 Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

The results of all PFAS samples tested in July 2019 are presented in Appendix C, with

those tested in December 2017 and September 2018 in SS1 presented for comparison in

Table 6. These results are discussed below.

In July 2019, PFAS were detected in 6 of the 9 surface sites tested, although principally

in SS1 (PLP), the Primary Leachate Pond. Within this pond, the level was somewhat

lower overall (Sum of PFAS 9.18 µg/L) than previously recorded in December 2017 (11.8

µg/L) and September 2018 (11.01 µg/L) (Table 6).

Low levels of several of the PFAS found in SS1 were detected within SS14 (SSWP-SP)

and to a lesser extent SS10 (CMLP) and SS2 (SSWP). As these sites had previously

contained B-Cell leachate, the detection of low PFAS levels is not unexpected.

Traces of PFOA (at limit of detection level – 0.02 µg/L) and two other PFAS were also

found in both SS3 (PSWP) and SS5 (PSWP Drain). Their presence indicates the

presence of traces of leachate within the stormwaters of SS3, possibly the result spray

drift during windy times from SS1 and historically the WAIV unit that was located nearby

until December 2017. The levels are so low as to be insignificant and are not discussed

further.

In the PLP (SS1), the PFOS level in July 2019 (0.32 µg/L) was lower than that detected in

December 2017 and September 2018 (0.42, 0.55 µg/L) but still marginally exceeded the

draft HEPA guideline value for slightly-moderately disturbed aquatic ecosystems (0.31

µg/L). PFOA levels were low on all three sampling dates and well below the relevant

guideline (220 µg/L).

Of the PFAS tested, PFHxA was present in the highest concentration (2.4 – 2.82 µg/L) in

SS1 during all three sampling events over 2017 – 2019.

Gallen et al (2017) tested leachate from 27 Australian landfills, although only for a suite of

9 PFAS, all of which were included in the PFAS suite analysed for CRDS samples. The

most prevalent PFAS detected within the CRDS leachate and that from the 27 landfills

examined by Gallen et al (2017) are summarised in Table 7 below.

Where comparison was possible, the concentrations of the various PFAS present in

CRDS leachate were well within the ranges found within the 27 landfills tested by Gallen

et al (2017) and well below the maxima recorded. In addition, those found to be most

prevalent by Gallen et al (2017) were also amongst those found in the highest

concentrations within CRDS leachate.

As with other leachate contaminants, the absence of any discharge to the receiving

environment from CRDS leachate ponds precludes any adverse impacts on the latter.

PFAS were not detected in any groundwater bore.


Table 6: PFAS levels in SS1, 2017 - 2019

COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORINGConsolidated Data Matrix - PFAS

Per &Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Dec-2017 Sep-2018 Jul-2019

Perfluoroalkane Sulphonic Acids (PFSAs)

Perfluorobutane sulphonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.97 1.3 1.1

Perfluoropentane sulphonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.06 <0.07 <0.02

Perfluorohexane sulphonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 1.21 1.2 1.1

Perfluoroheptane sulphonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L <0.02 <0.03 <0.02

Perfluorooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.42 0.55 0.32

Perfluorodecane sulphonic acid (PFDS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluoroalkane Carboxylic Acids (PFCAs)

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 2.5 1.4 1.2

Perfluorooentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 1.37 1.2 1.1

Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 2.82 2.7 2.4

Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.64 0.62 0.50

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.96 1.1 0.75

Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.06 0.06 0.04

Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.03 0.02 0.02

Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoroalkyl Sulphonamides

Perfluorooctane sulphonamide (FOSA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamide (MeFOSA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Ethly perfluorooctane sulphonamide (EtFOSA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoethanol µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoethanol µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.29 0.39 <0.05

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoacetic acid µg/L <0.02 0.07 <0.05

(n:2) Fluorotelomer Sulphonic Acids

4:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

6:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.47 0.42 0.33



Sum of PFAS µg/L 11.8 11.01 9.18

Perfluorooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.42 0.55 0.32

Sum of PFHxS and PFOS µg/L 1.63 1.75 1.42

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.96 1.1 0.75

Sum of PFAS (WA DER List) µg/L 11.4 10.49 8.80

Bold: Exceeds HEPA (2018) GL for Slightly - Moderately Disturbed Freshwater Ecological Systems

HEPA (2018) GL - PFOS: Slightly-Moderately Disturbed (95% sp. protection) = 0.13 µg/L

HEPA (2018) GL - PFOA: Slightly-Moderately Disturbed (95% sp. protection) = 220 µg/L


Table 7: Most prevalent PFAS in B-Cell leachate at CRDS and 27 Australian landfills (Galen et al

2017)

Most Prevalent PFASs Detected

Unit SS1 SS1 SS1 Min Max Mean

Dec-2017 Sep-2018 Jul-2019

Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 2.82 2.7 2.4 0.073 25.0 1.7

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 2.50 1.4 1.2 Not Tested

Perfluorooentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 1.37 1.2 1.1 Not Tested

Perfluorohexane sulphonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 1.21 1.2 1.1 0.056 16.000 1.200

Perfluorobutane sulphonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.97 1.3 1.1 Not Tested

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.96 1.1 0.75 0.017 7.500 0.690

Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.64 0.62 0.50 0.018 4.400 0.430

Perfluorooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.42 0.55 0.32 0.013 2.700 0.310

6:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.47 0.42 0.33 Not Tested

CRDS Gallen et al 2017 - 27 Landfills


5 Overall Summary and Conclusions

► Nine surface sites and nineteen groundwater bores were sampled on 16 -

17 July 2019 for a wide range of water quality parameters (groups 1 – 3) as

per the Landfill Sustainability Guide (DPIWE, 2004) and EPN 690/1. Nine of

these groundwater bores were sampled for the first time.

► The leachate storage pond seepage pits SS8 and SS11 were not sampled

as they were dry or insufficient water was present. The CLBP (SS9) was not

sampled as it was offline for cleaning, and contained only a little rainwater.

BH15B contained insufficient water for sampling and BH22 was inaccessible

due to earthworks.

► The levels of most parameters tested were within historical ranges at all

surface sites apart from SS10, the CMLP. The composition of the C-Cell

leachate it contains is in flux since waste disposal only commenced in

November 2018 and rainfall has been limited until June/July 2019.

► L/N ratios indicated the presence of leachate only within the Primary

Leachate Pond SS1 and to a lesser in the Secondary Stormwater Pond

(SS2). The latter was previously used to store leachate while the PLP was

relined and contained little water in July 2019.

► As sampling occurred immediately following a moderate rainfall event

following a dry period (flushing event), a range of stormwater (SS3, SS5)

and receiving water sites (SS7) were flowing and turbid from fine,

suspended clay.

► Within the CRT water was present at both the upstream reference site SS6

and the downstream site SS7. A small flow was present over the rock sill

downstream of SS6. Water quality at SS7 differed to some extent to that at

SS6. EC was clearly higher at SS7 (1,454 µS/cm) than at SS6 (528 µS/cm),

the CRT reference site, reflecting saline flows from the marsh (1,336 µS/cm)

and flushing of groundwater from the permanent pool upstream of the CRT-

marsh creek confluence (3,480 µS/cm). Major ion and nutrient levels were

also higher at SS7 than SS6.

► These differences in water quality between SS6 and SS7 downstream

reflect the flushing of rainwater from the marsh creek (including the marsh

itself and the CRDS stormwater system) to the CRT at SS7 following rainfall

as well as the timing of sampling, which occurred immediately at the end of

a significant rainfall event. Similar nutrient flushes have occurred previously

and are a natural feature of ephemeral systems such as the CRT. Adverse

impacts on ecological communities within the CRT at SS7 were unlikely,

particularly as SS7 was dry during the previous sampling event.

► TN and TP levels exceeded the relevant DGV for ecosystem protection at

both the SS6 reference site and SS7 the downstream site. EC and nitrate

levels also exceeded the relevant DGVs at SS7.

► Within all bores sampled in July 2019, the levels of most parameters tested

remained within historical ranges. Little change in water quality was noted

relative to previous recent sampling events.


► L/N ratios or the levels of other leachate indicators such as As levels, did not

indicate the presence of leachate within groundwaters at any bore tested.

► As has been the case since monitoring commenced, the waters of all bores

were saline to some extent (EC 2,347 – 8,300 µS/cm) and somewhat acidic,

including the new bores tested.

► Soluble metal levels were generally very low with only Zn exceeding the

ANZG (2018) toxicity DGV for surface water ecosystem protection in the

new bores BH10C, BH10D, BH19, BH21 and BH25B. The Cr level also

exceeded the relevant DGV in BH25B, V in BH2 and Mn in BH12A.

► In July 2019, PFAS were detected in 6 of the 9 surface sites tested,

although principally in SS1 (PLP), the Primary Leachate Pond. Within this

pond, the level was somewhat lower overall (Sum of PFAS 9.18 µg/L) than

previously recorded in December 2017 (11.8 µg/L) and September 2018

(11.01 µg/L) (Table 6).

► Low levels of several of the PFAS found in SS1 were detected within SS14

(SSWP-SP) and to a lesser extent SS10 (CMLP) and SS2 (SSWP). As

these sites had previously contained B-Cell leachate, the detection of low

PFAS levels is not unexpected.

► Traces of PFOA (at limit of detection level – 0.02 µg/L) and two other PFAS

were found in both SS3 (PSWP) and SS5 (PSWP Drain). Their presence

indicates the presence of traces of leachate within the stormwaters of SS3,

possibly the result spray drift during windy times from SS1 and historically

the WAIV unit that was located nearby until December 2017. The levels are

so low as to be insignificant.

► Where comparison was possible, the concentrations of the various PFAS

present in CRDS leachate were well within the ranges found within the 27

landfills tested by Gallen et al (2017) and well below the maxima recorded.

In addition, those found to be most prevalent by Gallen et al (2017) were

also amongst those found in the highest concentrations within CRDS

leachate.

► As with other leachate contaminants, the absence of any discharge to the

receiving environment from CRDS leachate ponds precludes any adverse

impacts on the latter.

► PFAS were not detected in any groundwater bore.

► The water quality data collected in July 2019 indicated that adverse water

quality impacts on groundwaters were not detected and that adverse

impacts on the receiving waters of the CRT attributable to the CRDS were

highly unlikely.


6 References

ALS (2010). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report, Dec 2009. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Australian Laboratory Services, 1 – 28, Appendix A – D

AquaSci (2014a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly Report, April 2014. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 22, Appendix A – C

AquaSci (2014b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Six-monthly Report, June 2014. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 25, Appendix A – C

AquaSci (2014c). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Water Quality Sampling, August 2014. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 15

AquaSci (2014d). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Ad Hoc Seep Sampling, 29 August 2014. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 16

AquaSci (2014e). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Review. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 43

AquaSci (2014f). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly Report, October 2014. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 29, Appendix A – C

AquaSci (2015a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Rainfall Event Sampling, 14 January 2015. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 14, Appendix 1

AquaSci (2015b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Quarterly Report, April 2015. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 29, Appendix A - D

AquaSci (2015c). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Six-monthly Report, June 2015. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 30, Appendix A – C

AquaSci (2015d). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Quarterly Report, September 2015. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 31, Appendix A – C

AquaSci (2015e). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, SS2 Sludge Analyses, November 2015. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 9, Appendix A

AquaSci (2016a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Annual Report December 2015. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 - 54, Appendices A – E.

AquaSci (2016b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, SS1 Sludge Analyses, March 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 – 11, Appendix A.


AquaSci (2016c). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly, Report March 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 35, Appendices A - C.

AquaSci (2016d). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, SS10 Ad Hoc Sampling Event, 8 June 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 – 10.

AquaSci (2016e). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Six-monthly Report, June 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 38, Appendices A - C.

AquaSci (2016f). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, SS1 Sludge Analyses, July 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 – 12, Appendix A.

AquaSci (2016g). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Primary Leachate Pond Relining, Sediment and Water Analyses, Sep 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 – 11

AquaSci (2016h). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly, Report October 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 35, Appendices A - C.

AquaSci (2017a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Annual Report 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 - 49, Appendices A – E.

AquaSci (2017b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly, Report April 2017. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 31, Appendices A - C.

AquaSci (2017c). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Six-monthly Report June 2017. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 - 42, Appendices A – E.

AquaSci (2017d). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly, Report October 2017. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 34, Appendices A - C.

AquaSci (2018a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Annual Report 2017. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 - 52, Appendices A – F.

AquaSci (2018b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly Report, March 2018. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 33, Appendices A - C.

AquaSci (2018c). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Report Six-monthly Event June 2018. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 - 42, Appendices A – E.

AquaSci (2018d). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Report, Quarterly Event, September 2018. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 43, Appendices A - D.


AquaSci (2019a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Annual Report 2018. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 - 52, Appendices A – E.

AquaSci (2019b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Review, 2019. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 - 86, Appendices A – C.

AquaSci (2019c). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Report, Quarterly Event, March 2019. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 34, Appendices A - C.

AquaSci (2019d). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Report, Ad Hoc Sampling Event, May 2019. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 16, Appendix A

Aquateco Consulting (2010). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring 6-monthly Report, June 2010. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Aquateco Consulting, 1 – 37, Appendix A–B

Aquateco Consulting (2011a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report, December 2010. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Aquateco Consulting, 1 – 60, Appendix A–C

Aquateco Consulting (2011B). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring 6-monthly Report, April 2011. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Aquateco Consulting, 1 – 37, Appendix A–B

ANZECC & ARMCANZ (1995). Guidelines for Groundwater Protection in Australia. National Water Quality Management Strategy, Paper No. 8. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.

ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. National Water Quality Management Strategy, Paper No. 4. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.

CDEE (2016). Draft Commonwealth Environmental Management Guidance on Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy, 1 – 36

CRC CARE (2017a). Assessment, management and remediation for PFOS and PFOA. Part 2: Health Screening Levels. Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment, Technical Report series, No. 38, 1 – 90

CRC CARE (2017b). Assessment, management and remediation for PFOS and PFOA. Part 3: Ecological Screening Levels. Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment, Technical Report series, No. 38, 1 – 50

DER (WA) (2016). Interim Guideline on the Assessment and Management of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Contaminated Sites Guidelines. Government of Western Australia, Department of Environment Regulation, 1 – 26.


DOH (2017). Health Based Guidance Values for PFAS. For Use in Site Investigations in Australia. Australian Government Department of Health, Fact Sheet, 1 - 2

DPIWE (2001). Emission Limit Guidelines for Sewage Treatment Plants That Discharge into Fresh and Marine Waters. Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, Tasmania, 1 - 6.

DPIWE (2002). Environmental Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Water in Tasmania. Environment Division, Department of Primary Industry and Environment, 1 – 131

DPIWE (2004). Landfill Sustainability Guide. Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment.

EPA, Tasmania (2019). Default Guideline Values for Aquatic Ecosystems of Tasmanian Inland Waters. epa.tas.gov.au/epa/water/Water Quality Guideline Values for Aquatic Ecosystem of Tasmania. Sourced July, 2019).

Ecosure (2012). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Six-monthly Report, April 2012. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by Ecosure Pty Ltd, 1 – 45, Appendix 1 – 3

Ecosure (2013a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report, November 2012. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by Ecosure Pty Ltd, 1 – 45, Appendix 1 – 3

Ecosure (2013b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring. Leachate Pond (SS1) Water Quality Analyses, 9 January 2013. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by Ecosure Pty Ltd, 1 – 2

Ecosure (2013c). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Rainfall Event, 9 April 2013. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by Ecosure Pty Ltd, 1 – 23, Appendix 1 – 2

Ecosure (2013d). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Secondary Stormwater Pond Discharge, 22-29 April 2013, Water Quality Monitoring. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by Ecosure Pty Ltd, 1 – 23, Appendix 1 – 2

Ecosure (2013e). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly Event Report, May 2013. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by Ecosure Pty Ltd, 1 – 36, Appendix 1 – 4

Ecosure (2013f). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Six-monthly Event Report, September 2013. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by Ecosure Pty Ltd, 1 – 36, Appendix 1 – 2

Ecowise Environmental (2006). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Six-monthly Report, May 2006. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Ecowise Environmental Pty Ltd, 1 – 16, Appendix A – B

Ecowise Environmental (2007a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report, Nov 2006. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Ecowise Environmental Pty Ltd, 1 – 21, Appendix A – E


Ecowise Environmental (2007b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Six-monthly Report, May 2007. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Ecowise Environmental Pty Ltd, 1 – 19, Appendix A – B

Ecowise Environmental (2008a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report, Nov 2007. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Ecowise Environmental, 1 – 25, Appendix A – D

Ecowise Environmental (2008b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring 6-monthly Report, May 2008. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Ecowise Environmental, 1 – 19, Appendix A – B

Ecowise Environmental (2009). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report, Dec 2008. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Ecowise Environmental, 1 – 24, Appendix A – D

Ecowise Environmental (2009). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring 6-monthly Report, May 2009. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Ecowise Environmental, 1 – 19, Appendix A – B

Gallen, C., Drage, D., Eaglesham, G., Grant, S., Bowman, M and Mueller, J.f. (2017). Australia-wide Assessment of Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Landfill Leachates. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 331: 132 – 141

HEPA (2018). PFAS National Environmental Management Plan. Heads of EPAs Australia and New Zealand/Australian Dept of Environment and Energy, Jan 2018, 1 - 49

NHMRC & NRMMC (2004). National Water Quality Management Strategy. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. 6. Commonwealth of Australia. Printed for the National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Resource Management Ministerial Council.

Standards Australia (1998a) Australian/ New Zealand Standard on Water Quality Sampling. Part 1: Guidance on the design of sampling programs, sampling techniques and the preservation and handling of samples AS/NZS 5667.1:1998

Standards Australia (1998b) Australian/ New Zealand Standard on Water Quality Sampling. Part 4: Guidance on sampling from lakes, natural and man made. AS/NZS 5667.6:1998

Standards Australia (1998c) Australian/ New Zealand Standard on Water Quality Sampling. Part 6: Guidance on sampling of rivers and streams. AS/NZS 5667.6:1998

Standards Australia (1998d) Australian/ New Zealand Standard on Water Quality Sampling. Part 11: Guidance on the sampling of groundwaters. AS/NZS 5667.11:1998

Water ECOscience (2001). Copping Landfill Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Quarterly Report October 2001. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd.


WATER ECOscience (2003). Copping Landfill Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report 2001 – 2002. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 27, Appendices.

WATER ECOscience (2004a). Copping Landfill Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report 2003. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 44, Appendices

WATER ECOscience (2004b). Copping Landfill Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Quarterly Report 24 February 2004. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 14, Appendices.

WATER ECOscience (2004c). Copping Landfill Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Quarterly Report 17 June 2004. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 23, Appendices.

WATER ECOscience (2004d). Copping Landfill Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Quarterly Report 24 August 2004. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 17, Appendices.

WATER ECOscience (2005a). Copping Landfill Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report 2004. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 20, Appendix A – E

WATER ECOscience (2005b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Six-monthly Report, April 2005. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 15, Appendix A – B

WATER ECOscience (2006a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report 2005. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 20, Appendix A – E


Appendix A: SS Results Summary Tables


COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING

Consolidated Data Matrix - Surface Sampling Sites - 16 July 2019 - SME

DGV

Ecosystem SS 1 SS 4 SS 9 SS8 SS10 SS11

Parameter Units Protection PLP PLP-SP CLBP CLBP-SP CMLP CMLP-SP

SMD-Tas-H2 0850 0835 0730 0720 0740 0735

Surface Waters 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul

Group 1 (Q) Off-line Dry Dry

*Water temperatureoC 8.0-16.4 12.3 11.6 8.9

*pH 7.1-7.8 7.7 7.0 7.3

*Conductivity µS/cm 850.8 13,610 6,450 2,569

TDS mg/L 7,200 3,900 1,800

*Redox Potential mV (Calomel) -27.2 -13.6 89.7

COD mg/L 1,600 19 200

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L 11 12 <2 150

Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 3,700 660 160

Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.726 600 0.55 16

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L 600 0.38 14

Ammonia as N mg/L 0.018 560 0.082 0.011

Nitrate as N mg/L 0.132 <0.1 0.16 2.3

Nitrite as N mg/L 0.002 <0.1 0.005 0.021

Total Phosphorous as P mg/L 0.015 3.1 0.017 1.1

Orthophosphate (reactive) as P mg/L 0.006 2.3 <0.003 <0.003

DOC mg/L 380 4.3 39

Total CN as CN mg/L 0.007 (tox) <0.05 <0.005 <0.005

E. coli org/100mL 130 0 620

Group 2 (S) -Total Metals Toxicity DGV

Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 0.25 <0.001 0.035

Aluminium as Al mg/L 0.055 0.09 0.02 20

Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 0.036

Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 (Cr VI) 0.062 <0.001 0.004

Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 0.002 0.001 0.015

Iron as Fe mg/L 2.6 0.4 1.6

Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 0.029

Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 0.48 0.48 0.65

Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.030 0.003 0.800

Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.025 0.008 0.60

Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L 0.049 <0.001 0.007

Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0045

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 0.004 <0.001 0.066

Group 2 (S) - Soluble Metals

Aluminium as Al mg/L 0.055 0.060 0.02 1.4

Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 0.25 <0.001 0.009

Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.019

Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 0.057 <0.001 0.001

Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 <0.001 <0.001 0.005

Iron as Fe mg/L 2.3 <0.01 0.01

Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 0.5 0.47 0.5

Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.12 0.003 0.58

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 0.004 <0.001 0.062

Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L 0.046 <0.001 0.003

Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.011 0.006 0.20

Group 3 (S) - Major Ions

Chloride as Cl-

mg/L 3,200 2,100 140

Sulphur as SO4=

mg/L 92 190 1,100

Magnesium as Mg mg/L 310 280 140

Potassium as K mg/L 150 2 12

Sodium as Na mg/L 2,000 820 240

Calcium as Ca mg/L 120 210 150

* Measured in the field. SME = Six-monthly event L = low reliability TTV

Bold: Exceeded relevant guideline for ecosystem protection

Physico-chemical Stressors DGV - Tasmania - Hydrological Region 2 (EPA Tas, 2019) Toxicity DGV (ANZG, 2018)

Leachate Ponds and Seepage Pits



Consolidated Data Matrix - Surface Sampling Sites - 16 July 2019 - SME

DGV

Ecosystem SS 2 SS 14 SS 3 SS 5 SS 6 SS 7

Parameter Units Protection SSWP SSWP-SP PSWP PSWPD CRT-U/S CRT-D/S

SMD-Tas-H2 0815 0800 0900 0920 1000 0950

Surface Waters 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul

Group 1 (Q)

*Water temperatureoC 8.0-16.4 10.8 12.2 8.0 8.0 8.4 8.0

*pH 7.1-7.8 9.0 7.5 8.2 8.1 7.2 7.7

*Conductivity µS/cm 850.8 520 3,810 808 923 528 1,454

TDS mg/L 310 2,100 380 470 270 710

*Redox Potential mV (Calomel) 86.3 106.7 44.0 78.3 113.0 83.4

COD mg/L 95 74 36 34 35 34

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L 11 24 <2 46 23 <2 6

Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 110 80 150 170 73 140

Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.726 3.7 13 8.4 6.7 1.5 2.4

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L 3.7 3.0 5.9 4.4 1.5 2.0

Ammonia as N mg/L 0.018 0.049 0.004 0.50 0.31 0.006 0.004

Nitrate as N mg/L 0.132 0.012 10 2.4 2.3 0.018 0.41

Nitrite as N mg/L 0.002 <0.002 0.004 0.041 0.042 <0.002 0.003

Total Phosphorous as P mg/L 0.015 0.20 0.060 0.26 0.22 0.087 0.19

Orthophosphate (reactive) as P mg/L 0.006 0.004 0.020 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

DOC mg/L 30 25 8 8 9 10

Total CN as CN mg/L 0.007 (tox) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

E. coli org/100mL 21 1 520 140 10 41

Group 2 (S) -Total Metals Toxicity DGV

Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 0.056 0.005 0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Aluminium as Al mg/L 0.055 0.21 0.09 2.5 1.4 1.0 1.7

Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 (Cr VI) <0.001 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.002

Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 0.002 0.010 0.010 0.007 0.002 0.003

Iron as Fe mg/L 0.52 0.02 4.4 2.5 0.85 2.3

Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 0.002 <0.001 0.006 0.004 <0.001 0.001

Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 0.11 0.022 0.11 0.047 0.017 0.092

Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.003 0.017 0.005 0.004 0.002 0.003

Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.007 0.012 0.008 0.007 0.003 0.005

Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L 0.003 <0.001 0.011 0.007 0.004 0.005

Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 0.0004 <0.0001 0.0008 0.0006 <0.0001 0.0002

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 <0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.003


Aluminium as Al mg/L 0.055 <0.01 0.09 0.01 0.010 0.03 0.01

Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 0.036 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 <0.001 0.010 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.002

Iron as Fe mg/L 0.03 <0.01 0.1 0.02 0.08 0.04

Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001


Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.002 0.016 0.003 0.002 <0.001 0.002

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L 0.002 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.001 <0.001

Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 <0.001 0.007 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Group 3 (S) - Major Ions

Chloride as Cl-

mg/L 97 1,200 150 210 120 420

Sulphur as SO4=

mg/L 8 120 26 31 23 62

Magnesium as Mg mg/L 11 65 23 31 16 50

Potassium as K mg/L 7 13 2.9 3 2 2

Sodium as Na mg/L 62 640 100 120 67 220

Calcium as Ca mg/L 16 39 25 31 12 35


Bold: Exceeded relevant guideline for ecosystem protection Receiving waters

Physico-chemical Stressors DGV - Tasmania - Hydrological Region 2 (EPA Tas, 2019)

Stormwaters and Receiving Waters


Appendix B: BH Results Summary Tables



Consolidated Data Matrix - Groundwater Sampling Sites - 16 - 17 July 2019 - SME

Parameter Units DGV BH1 BH13 BH19 BH21 BH22 BH12A BH12B

Ecosystem CLN UR-S CLW UR-SW UR-NE BIA-D BIA-S

Protection 23.0 m 13.5 m 8.4 m 30.4 m 20.0 m 21.6 m 5.5 m

SMD-Tas-H2 1400 1040 1030 1000 1120 0920 0930

Surface Waters 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul

Bore depth m bgl 23.00 13.49 8.44 30.47 21.58 5.17

Groundwater depth m bgl 6.98 7.33 4.65 10.20 3.67 4.01

Static hydraulic head m bgl 16.02 6.16 3.79 20.27 17.91 1.16

Group 1 (Q) ns CLAY

*Water temperatureoC 8.0-16.4 15.0 13.7 13.9 13.2 12.9 13.9

*pH 7.1-7.8 nm nm nm 7.2 6.8 6.0

*Conductivity µS/cm 850.8 6,600 4,960 4,390 2,347 5,130 3,350

TDS mg/L 4,900 2,900 2,500 1,300 3,100 1,800

*Redox Potential mV (calomel) nm nm nm 55.9 26.1 84.5

COD mg/L 16 17 11 8 13 13

Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.726 0.07 0.20 0.1 0.13 0.16 0.14

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.07 0.19 0.08 0.09 0.14 0.12

Ammonia as N mg/L 0.018 0.019 <0.02 <0.02 0.017 0.120 0.019

Nitrate as N mg/L 0.132 <0.003 <0.003 0.006 0.035 0.019 0.020

Nitrite as N mg/L 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.002 0.003 <0.002 0.003

Total Phosphorous as P mg/L 0.015 0.007 0.004 0.014 0.004 0.004 0.019

Orthophosphate (reactive) as P mg/L 0.006 0.007 0.004 0.009 0.004 0.004 0.007

DOC mg/L 2.0 5.3 2.8 2.4 1.8 3.0

Total CN as CN mg/L 0.007 (tox) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Group 2 (S) - Total Metals Toxicity DGV

Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001

Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 (Cr VI) 0.005 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005

Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 <0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 <0.001 0.002

Iron as Fe mg/L 0.58 1.2 3.2 0.68 0.47 4.3

Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 0.002 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.003


Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.002 0.007 0.010 0.002 0.001 0.005

Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.008 0.010 0.021 0.025 0.005 0.019

Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.001 <0.001 0.003

Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001


Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Iron as Fe mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001


Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 <0.001 0.004 0.007 <0.001 <0.001 0.003

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.001 0.002 0.009 0.017 0.003 0.004

Group 3 (S) - Major ions

Chloride as Cl-

mg/L 2,200 1,400 1,400 590 1,700 1,000

Sulphur as SO4=

mg/L 130 95 100 56 82 84

Magnesium as Mg mg/L 420 250 130 43 140 59

Potassium as K mg/L 8 4.2 1.6 3.5 5 5.7

Sodium as Na mg/L 350 350 460 270 600 450

Calcium as Ca mg/L 370 250 100 91 240 26







Parameter Units DGV BH7 BH10A BH10C BH10D BH24A BH24B BH25A BH25B

Ecosystem BPLP BNC9O-D BNC9-D BNC9-S WBS-D WBS-S WBN-D WBN-S

Protection 10.1 m 7.8 m 12.4 m 7.0 m 12.4 m 3.0 m 9.5 m 2.8 m

SMD-Tas-H2 1235 1115 1105 1100 0855 0905 0845 0840

Surface Waters 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul

Bore depth m bgl 10.16 7.44 12.39 7.03 12.42 3.03 9.51 2.83

Groundwater depth m bgl 1.49 1.33 2.06 1.33 1.86 1.83 2.19 2.17

Static hydraulic head m bgl 8.67 6.11 10.33 5.7 10.56 1.20 7.32 0.66

Group 1 (Q)

*Water temperatureoC 8.0-16.4 14.8 14.5 13.5 13.4 12.8 11.7 13.2 12.4

*pH 7.1-7.8 nm nm nm nm 6.5 6.8 6.3 6.2

*Conductivity µS/cm 850.8 7,250 6,500 8,220 8,300 7,370 6,580 5,700 6,560

TDS mg/L 4,300 3,700 5,100 5,000 4,700 3,900 3,200 3,600

*Redox Potential mV (calomel) nm nm nm nm -5.0 50.5 78.0 79.8

COD mg/L 20 19 24 20 18 16 18 24

Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.726 0.08 0.06 0.68 0.1 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.22

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.07 0.06 0.57 0.09 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.19

Ammonia as N mg/L 0.018 <0.02 <0.02 0.29 <0.02 0.082 <0.02 <0.02 <0.002

Nitrate as N mg/L 0.132 0.003 <0.003 0.11 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.027

Nitrite as N mg/L 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.003 <0.002 0.003

Total Phosphorous as P mg/L 0.015 0.028 0.023 0.006 <0.005 0.008 0.028 0.010 0.006

Orthophosphate (reactive) as P mg/L 0.006 0.016 0.022 0.006 0.004 0.007 0.016 0.008 0.006

DOC mg/L 3.8 4.4 6.8 4.0 3.4 3.6 3.2 5.8

Total CN as CN mg/L 0.007 (tox) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005


Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.001

Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 (Cr VI) 0.005 0.004 0.006 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.008

Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.004

Iron as Fe mg/L 0.17 0.31 0.96 0.24 1.9 2.5 0.59 4.0

Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002

Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 0.53 0.03 0.94 0.44 1.6 0.32 0.14 1.2

Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.002 <0.001 0.005 0.001 <0.001 0.004 0.002 0.006

Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.003 0.005 0.023 0.020 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.022

Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L <0.001 0.003 0.002 0.001 <0.001 0.004 0.001 0.005

Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001


Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002

Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002

Iron as Fe mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 0.51 <0.001 0.89 0.44 1.6 0.26 0.14 1.2

Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.002 0.004

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.001 0.003 0.014 0.018 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.012


Chloride as Cl-

mg/L 2,400 1,900 2,700 2,900 2,500 2,000 1,800 2,200

Sulphur as SO4=

mg/L 180 170 260 180 200 200 170 200

Magnesium as Mg mg/L 320 270 350 440 220 190 130 170

Potassium as K mg/L 3.2 4 10 5 4 2 3 4

Sodium as Na mg/L 780 770 870 780 880 860 820 960

Calcium as Ca mg/L 250 130 290 270 270 140 97 99







Parameter Units DGV BH18A BH18B BH14A BH14B BH15A BH15B BH23 BH2

Ecosystem URE-D URE-S CSW-D CSW-S CW-D CW-S BNC10 DNW

Protection 34.8 m 19.3 m 24.4 m 11.6 m 29.7 m 13.6 m 15.4 m 11.5 m

SMD-Tas-H2 0730 1530 1245 0800 1320 1310 1125 1200

Surface Waters 17-Jul 16-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 16-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul

Bore depth m bgl 34.88 19.30 24.35 11.62 29.68 13.60 15.37 11.56

Groundwater depth m bgl 34.32 17.11 8.53 8.19 15.06 12.80 4.52 0.87

Static hydraulic head m bgl 0.56 2.19 15.82 3.43 14.62 0.80 10.85 10.69

Group 1 (Q) V Low Vol DRY Not purged

*Water temperatureoC 8.0-16.4 13.1 15.2 15.3 13.8 13.9

*pH 7.1-7.8 7.6 nm nm nm nm

*Conductivity µS/cm 850.8 4,310 3,930 5,910 2,472 3,120

TDS mg/L 2,500 2,300 3,400 1,500 2,000

*Redox Potential mV (calomel) -73.2 nm nm nm nm

COD mg/L 23 13 17 9 10

Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.726 0.51 0.45 0.07 0.1 0.54

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.35 0.16 0.07 0.09 0.06

Ammonia as N mg/L 0.018 0.017 0.037 <0.002 0.011 <0.02

Nitrate as N mg/L 0.132 0.160 0.29 0.004 <0.003 0.48

Nitrite as N mg/L 0.002 0.005 0.003 <0.002 <0.002 0.002

Total Phosphorous as P mg/L 0.015 0.023 0.007 <0.005 0.004 0.007

Orthophosphate (reactive) as P mg/L 0.006 <0.003 0.006 <0.003 0.004 0.006

DOC mg/L 6.4 3.5 4.1 2.5 3.1

Total CN as CN mg/L 0.007 (tox) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005


Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 0.020 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.001

Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 0.0007 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 (Cr VI) 0.073 0.008 0.005 0.004 0.006

Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 0.45 0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001

Iron as Fe mg/L 190 0.84 2.0 0.59 1.30

Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 0.040 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 1.7 0.42 0.17 0.19 0.054

Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.098 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.002

Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.32 0.010 0.006 0.015 0.009

Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L 0.37 0.003 <0.001 0.002 0.023

Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 0.021 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Group 2 (S) - Soluble Metals Turbid

Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.001

Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Iron as Fe mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 0.23 0.37 0.17 0.18 0.019

Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L 0.006 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.016

Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.002 0.002 <0.001 0.005 0.002


Chloride as Cl-

mg/L 1,400 1,100 2,000 620 840

Sulphur as SO4=

mg/L 58 61 130 27 58

Magnesium as Mg mg/L 120 190 360 110 150

Potassium as K mg/L 10 3.1 6 2.0 3.7

Sodium as Na mg/L 600 280 370 190 270

Calcium as Ca mg/L 280 180 230 120 150





Appendix C: PFAS Results


COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORINGConsolidated Data Matrix - 16 July 2019 - PFAS: Surface Sites

SS 1 SS4 SS10 SS2 SS14 SS 3 SS 5 SS 6 SS 7

Per &Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) PLP PLP-SP CMLP SSWP SSWP-SP PSWP PSWPD CRT-U/S CRT-D/S

Perfluoroalkane Sulphonic Aids

Perfluorobutane sulphonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 1.1 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.20 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluoropentane sulphonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorohexane sulphonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 1.1 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.18 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluoroheptane sulphonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.32 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorodecane sulphonic acid (PFDS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluoroalkane Carboxylic Acids

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 1.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.30 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Perfluorooentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 1.1 <0.02 0.04 0.04 0.41 0.03 0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 2.4 <0.02 0.03 0.03 0.47 0.04 0.04 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.50 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.10 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.75 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.14 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.04 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.02 <0.02 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05


Perfluorooctane sulphonamide (FOSA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamide (MeFOSA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Ethly perfluorooctane sulphonamide (EtFOSA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoethanol µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoethanol µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoacetic acid µg/L <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoacetic acid µg/L <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02


4:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

6:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.33 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05



Sum of PFAS µg/L 9.18 <0.01 0.12 0.07 1.84 0.09 0.08 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.32 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Sum of PFHxS and PFOS µg/L 1.42 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.22 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.75 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.14 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01

Sum of PFAS (WA DER List) µg/L 8.80 <0.01 0.10 0.07 1.84 0.09 0.08 <0.01 <0.01

PFAS Detected

Draft ANZECC GL - PFOA: Slightly-Moderately Disturbed (95% sp. protection) = 220 µg/L

Draft ANZECC GL - PFOS: Slightly-Moderately Disturbed (95% sp. protection) = 0.13 µg/L

Leachate Ponds Stormwaters and Receiving Waters


COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORINGConsolidated Data Matrix - 16/17 July 2019- PFAS: Groundwaters

BH1 BH2 BH7 BH10A BH10C BH10D BH12A BH12B BH13 BH14A BH15A BH18A BH19 BH21 BH23 BH24A BH24B BH25A BH25B

Per &Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) CLN DBNW BPLP BNC9O-D BNC9-D BNC9-S BIA-D BIA-S URS CSW-D CW-D URE-D CLW URSW BNC10 WBS-D WBS-S WBN-D WBN-S

Perfluoroalkane Sulphonic Aids

Perfluorobutane sulphonic acid (PFBS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluoropentane sulphonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorohexane sulphonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluoroheptane sulphonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS) µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorodecane sulphonic acid (PFDS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluoroalkane Carboxylic Acids

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Perfluorooentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05


Perfluorooctane sulphonamide (FOSA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamide (MeFOSA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Ethly perfluorooctane sulphonamide (EtFOSA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoethanol µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoethanol µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoacetic acid µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoacetic acid µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02


4:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05




Sum of PFAS µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS) µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Sum of PFHxS and PFOS µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Sum of PFAS (WA DER List) µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PFAS Detected

Draft ANZECC GL - PFOA: Slightly-Moderately Disturbed (95% sp. protection) = 220 µg/L Highly Disturbed (90% sp. protection) = 2.0 µg/L Highly Disturbed (80% sp. protection) = 31 µg/L

Draft ANZECC GL - PFOS: Slightly-Moderately Disturbed (95% sp. protection) = 0.13 µg/L

Groundwater Bores - B Groundwater Bores - C


Appendix D: Site Locations/Descriptions


CRDS Surface Water Monitoring Site Locations

Site Description Acronym GPS Co-ordinates

(GDA 94)

Surface Sites

SS1 Primary Leachate Pond. PLP S42o50.344’ E147

o45.819’

SS2 Secondary Stormwater Pond (runoff from unused cells). SSWP S42o50.394’ E147

o45.854’

SS3 Primary Stormwater Pond. PSWP S42o50.344’ E147

o45.766’

SS4 Primary Leachate Pond Liner Underdrain Pit (Seepage Pit) PLP-SP S42o50.333’ E147

o45.817’

SS5 Primary Stormwater Pond drain to marsh and the Carlton River Tributary (CRT). PSWPD S42o50.264’ E147

o45.744’

SS6 CRT upstream of discharge from Stormwater Pond and marsh; approx. 340 m upstream of SS7. CRT-U/S S42o50.106’ E147

o45.892’

SS7 CRT downstream of discharge from Stormwater Pond and 25 m downstream of marsh discharge creek. CRT-D/S S42o50.089’ E147

o45.709’

SS8 C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond Seepage Pit. CLBP-SP S42o50.584’ E147

o46.077’

SS9 C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond CLBP S42o50.589’ E147

o46.108’

SS10 C-Cell Main Leachate Pond. CMLP S42o50.599’ E147

o46.154’

SS11 C-Cell Main Leachate Pond Seepage Pit. CMLP-SP S42o50.592’ E147

o46.150’

SS14 Secondary Stormwater Pond Seepage Pit SSWP-SP S42o50.396’ E147

o45.858’

*SS15 Marsh Creek; field measurements recorded when flowing (Tw, pH, EC, TDS) Marsh Ck S42o50.103’ E147

o45.722’

*SS16 Permanent pool just upstream of marsh creek CRT confluence (Tw, pH, EC, TDS) Confl Pool S42o50.198’ E147

o45.736’

* Not sampled routinely


CRDS Groundwater Monitoring Bores


(GDA 94)

Upgradient Bores

BH13 Upgradient reference Bore – South; 13.5 m; constructed 2013; just outside of southern CLBP fence line. URS S42o50.648’ E147

o46.088’

BH18A C-Cell Upgradient reference bore East - Deep; 34.8 m WQ monitoring bore; constructed February 2016; slotted 34 – 34.5 m; 20 m E of C-Cell near concrete water tank.

URE-D S42o50.432’ E147

o46.263’

*BH18B C-Cell Upgradient reference bore East - Shallow; 19.3 m (25 mm diam.); same hole as BH18A; constructed February 2016; hydrostatic parameters only.

URE-S S42o50.432’ E147

o46.263’

BH21 South-western Upgradient Bore; 30.4 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 24.4 – 30.4 m; 90 m SW of BH19. URSW S42o50.677’ E147

o45.987’

BH22 North-eastern Upgradient reference bore; 20 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 14.0 – 20.0 m; located at upgradient of Cells 10-17, 240 m north of C-Cell.

URNE S42o50.263’ E147

o46.188’

Leachate Treatment Wetland Bores

BH24A Wetland bore North – Deep; 12.4 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 8.4 - 12.4 m; located at southern end of treatment wetland complex, 45 m W of SSWP, 30 m outside W CRDS fence line;.

WBN-D S42o50.459’ E147

o45.835’

BH24B Wetland bore North – Shallow; 3.0 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 1 – 3.0 m; located next to BH24A. WBN-S S42o50.459’ E147

o45.835’

BH25A Wetland Bore South – Deep; 9.5 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 6.5 – 9.5 m; located at northern end of treatment wetland complex, 120 m S of BH24, 50 m outside of W CRDS fence line.

WBS-D S42o50.397’ E147

o45.804’

BH25B Wetland Bore South – Shallow; 2.8 m; constructed February 2019; located next to BH25A. slotted 2 – 2.8 m. WBS-S S42o50.397’ E147

o45.804’

Near B-Cell Groundwater Bores

BH10A Adjacent Cell 9 bore - Deep; 7.8 m; constructed 2011; slotted 3.5 – 7.5 m; located 80 m east of the Secondary Stormwater Pond downgradient of Cell 9, between access road and cell.

BAC9-D S42o50.370’ E147

o45.918’

BH10B Adjacent Cell 9 bore - Shallow; 3 m; constructed 2011, located beside BH10A; no longer in use; to be decommissioned.

BAC9-S S42o50.370’ E147

o45.919’

BH10C Near Cell 9 bore – Deep; 12.4 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 11.5 - 12.4 m; located 80 m east of SSWP, north of Cell 9 perimeter road.

BNC9-D S42o50.361’ E147

o45.907’

BH10D Near Cell 9 bore – Shallow; 7.0 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 6.0 – 7.0 m; next to BH10C. BNC9-S S42o50.361’ E147

o45.907’



(GDA 94)

Near C Cell Groundwater Bores

BH14A C-Cell SW bore - Deep; 24.4 m (originally 21.5 m) WQ monitoring bore; GL raised and extended vertically April 2017; constructed December 2015; slotted 23 – 24 m; SW corner of C Cell.

CSW-D S42o50.509’ E147

o46.192’

*BH14B C-Cell SW bore - Shallow; 11.6 m (originally 9 m) (25 mm diam.), same hole as BH14A; constructed December 2015; hydrostatic parameters only.

CSW-S S42o50.509’ E147

o46.192’

BH15A C-Cell Western bore - Deep; 29.7 m (originally 24 m) WQ monitoring bore; constructed December 2015; GL raised and extended vertically on 3 occasions over 2017/18; slotted 29 – 29.5 m; mid-point of western border of C Cell at edge of B-Cell 4.

CW-D S42o50.451’ E147

o46.143’

BH15B C-Cell Western bore - Shallow; 13.6 m (originally 8.4 m) WQ monitoring bore; constructed December 2015; slotted 13 – 13.5 m; next to BH15A; in temporary perched aquifer.

CW-S S42o50.451’ E147

o46.143’

Near Leachate Pond Groundwater Bores

BH7 Primary Leachate Pond Bore (downgradient bore west); 10 m; constructed 2001; slotted 4 – 10 m; north-west and 50 m downgradient of Primary Leachate Pond.

BPLP S42o50.317’ E147

o45.793’

BH1 C-Cell Leachate pond bore North: Original 23.5 m, 100 mm diameter reference bore; constructed 1996; slotted 1 – 23 m; SE boundary of original site.

CLN S42o50.577’ E147

o46.096’

BH19 C-Cell Leachate pond bore West; 8.4 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 5.5 – 8.4 m; 170 m W of CLBP. CLW S42o50.614’ E147

o46.001’

Outer Groundwater Bores

BH2 North western Downgradient Bore/C-Cell downgradient bore: 11.3 m, constructed July 1996; original 100 mm diameter survey bore; slotted 1 – 11 m; sampling discontinued in 2002. Confirmed operational by AquaSci in 2014. Sampling resumed March 2016; 250 m NE of PLP.

DBNW S42o50.245’ E147

o45.970’

BH12A Irrigation Area bore – Deep; 21.6 m; constructed 2013; slotted 18.5 – 21.5 m; 110 m from western CRDS fence line. BIA-D S42o50.567’ E147o45.848’

BH12B Irrigation Area bore – Shallow; 5.5 m; constructed 2013; slotted 4 – 5.2 m; next to BH12A. BIA-S S42o50.568’ E147o45.848’

BH23 Near Cell10 bore; 15.4; constructed February 2019; slotted 9.4 – 15.4 m; located at western edge of Cell 10 – 17, 105 m SE of BH2.

BNC10 S42o50.284’ E147

o46.025’

* Monitoring of hydrostatic parameters only (25 mm diameter) All bores 50 mm diameter, unless otherwise stated. Suffix: -D = deeper bore of pair -S = shallower bore of pair Prefix: U = Upgradient Bore B = B-Cell Bore C = C-Cell Bore D = Far Downgradient Bore W = Leachate Treatment Wetland Bore


Appendix E: SS + BH L/N Ratios


Surface Sites – L/N Ratios

SS 1 SS 2 SS 3 SS 4 SS 8 SS 9 SS10 SS14

2007 May 0.201 0.053 0.050 0.012

Nov 0.232 0.097 0.010 0.012

2008 May 0.247 0.082 0.044 0.026

Dec 0.211 0.096 0.053 0.023

2009 May 0.295 0.111 0.044 0.016

Dec 0.350 0.197 0.064 0.033

2010 Jul 0.456 0.120 0.247 0.067

Dec 0.148 0.101 0.082 0.035

2011 Apr 0.333 0.106 0.075 0.032

Dec 0.300 0.117 0.120 0.026

2012 Apr 0.372 0.133 0.088 0.023

Nov 0.314 0.114 0.058 0.030

2013 May 0.260 0.149 0.098 0.016 0.091 0.129

Sep 0.356 0.156 0.081 0.041 0.023 0.132

Dec 0.322 0.109 0.038 0.033 0.093 0.112

2014 Apr 0.219 0.064 0.042 0.019 0.083 0.116

Jun 0.272 0.093 0.051 0.091 0.256 0.124

Oct 0.300 0.082 0.061 0.091 0.415 0.121

Dec 0.322 0.049 0.051 0.048 0.367 0.112

2015 Jun 0.358 NS-Drained 0.075 0.020 0.153 0.089

Dec 0.248 NS-Drained 0.045 0.021 NS-Dry 0.101 0.095

2016 Jun 0.387 NS-Drained 0.070 0.019 NS-Dry 0.085 0.085

2017 Jan 0.332 NS-Drained 0.048 0.009 NS-Dry 0.089 0.088

Jun 0.355 NS-Drained 0.098 0.010 NS-Dry 0.095 0.086

Dec 0.306 NS-Drained 0.079 NS NS-Dry 0.082 NS-Drained SS2 Drained

2018 Jun 0.382 NS-Drained 0.093 0.005 NS-Dry 0.087 NS-Drained SS2 Drained

Dec 0.241 NS-Drained 0.052 0.003 NS-Dry 0.085 0.220 0.030

2019 Jul 0.355 0.122 0.058 0.003 NS-Dry NS-Drained 0.060 0.036

Dec

*Indicative level for groundwaters

K++NH4

++NOx/Na

+

*Value Indicative of Leachate - 0.1 or greater


Groundwater Bores – L/N Ratios

BH 1 BH 7 BH10A BH10B BH10C BH10D BH12A BH12B BH13 BH 2 BH 14A BH15A BH15B BH18A

2007 May 0.019 0.004

Nov 0.032 0.004

2008 May 0.026 0.005

Dec 0.026 0.003

2009 May 0.022 0.004

Dec 0.021 0.005

2010 Jul 0.031 0.007

Dec 0.019 0.004

2011 Apr 0.024 0.005

Dec 0.023 0.005 0.032 0.007

2012 Apr 0.024 0.005 0.011 0.012

Nov 0.021 0.005 0.005 0.009

2013 May 0.021 0.004 0.004 0.009 0.190 0.023 0.024

Sep 0.006 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.020 0.012 0.014

Dec 0.027 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.014 0.012 0.014

2014 Apr 0.020 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.010 0.015 0.011

Jun 0.022 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.013 0.018 0.011

Oct 0.020 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.010 0.010 0.011

Dec 0.020 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008 0.011 0.010

2015 Jun 0.017 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.010 0.010

Dec 0.019 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.009 0.015

2016 Jun 0.021 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.075 0.017

2017 Jan 0.020 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.011 0.010 0.011 0.015 0.012 ns ns ns

Jun 0.019 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.016 ns ns ns ns

Dec 0.021 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.011 0.010 0.011 0.016 ns ns ns ns

2018 Jun 0.023 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.009 0.011 0.012 0.016 0.013 0.016 NS 0.021

Dec 0.018 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.011 0.013 0.009 0.013 0.019 0.019

2019 Jul 0.023 0.004 0.005 NS 0.012 0.006 0.009 0.013 0.012 0.016 0.012 0.016 NS 0.017

Dec

K++NH4

++NOx/Na

+

Value Indicative of Leachate - 0.1 or higher


BH19 BH21 BH22 BH23 BH24A BH24B BH25A BH25B

2019 Jul 0.004 0.013 ns 0.011 0.005 0.002 0.004 0.004

Dec

Value Indicative of Leachate - 0.1 or higher

K++NH4

++NOx/Na

+


Appendix F: Bore Sampling Data


T001 - COPPING RDS SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM

Groundwater Bore Sampling Data - 2019Bore/Date Diameter Depth Water Table Sample Depth Vol Purged Comments

(mm) (m bgl) (m bgl) (m bgl) (L)

B-Cell BoresBH1 Moderate - Rapid recharge

19/03/2019 100 23.19 6.87 18 Nil Not purged - pump motor failed; sampled 19 Mar with bailer; clear

17/07/2019 100 23.00 6.98 18 240 Purged/sampled 17 Jul; pumped well; slight H2S odour; slightly turbid

BH7 Rapid recharge

19/03/2019 50 10.16 1.96 8.5 84 Purged & sampled 19 Mar; pumped well; orange first 12L then clear

17/07/2019 50 10.16 1.49 8.5 84 Purged & sampled 17 Jul; pumped well; turbid first 12L then clear

BH10A Moderate recharge rate; clay on bottom

18-19/03/2018 50 7.44 1.40 6.5 48 Purged 18 Mar, sampled 19 Mar; slightly turbid

16-17/07/2019 50 7.44 1.33 7 P to bottom Purged 16 Jul, sampled 17 Jul; slightly turbid

BH10B

19/03/2019 50 2.89 1.36 2.75 P to bottom Purged 18 Mar, sampled 19 Mar; milky turbid

16-17/07/2019 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A Not Sampled

BH10C

19/03/2019 50 12.53 3.70 N/A N/A Newly constructed: only water levels measured

16-17/07/2019 50 12.39 2.06 12 P to bottom Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; turbid

BH10D


16-17/07/2019 50 7.03 1.33 6.5 P to bottom Purged dry 16 Jul v. quickly; 1st 12L turbid; sampled 17 Jul; unproductive

BH12A Very slow recharge rate

18-19/03/2018 50 21.58 3.59 21 P to bottom Purged 18 Mar, sampled with bailer 19 Mar; slightly turbid

16-17/07/2019 50 21.58 3.57 21 P to bottom Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; slightly turbid as usual

BH12B Very slow recharge rate; copious soft clay on bottom

18-19/03/2018 50 5.18 3.83 Bailed to 5 m P to B Purged 18 Mar, sampled 19 Mar with bailer; very turbid - clay

16-17/07/2019 50 5.17 4.01 Bailed to 5 m P to B Purged 16 Jul; sampeld 17 Jul with bailer; very turbid - clay

BH13 Very slow recharge rate; purges rapidly

18-19/03/2018 50 13.49 7.31 13 P to bottom Purged 18 Mar, sampled with bailer 19 Mar; slightly turbid (milky)

16-17/07/2019 50 13.49 7.33 13 P to bottom Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; slightly turbid (milky) as usual

BH19


16-17/07/2019 50 8.44 4.65 7.5 P to bottom Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; mod. turbid

BH21


16-17/07/2019 50 30.47 10.20 29 120 Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; productive

BH22


16-17/07/2019 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A Not sampled - inaccessible (earthworks/mud)

BH23


16-17/07/2019 50 15.37 4.52 14 Not purged Surrounded by wet clay; sampled 17 Jul on foot with bailer

P = purged B = Bottom Vac = Vacuumed


T001 - COPPING RDS SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM

Groundwater Bore Sampling DataBore/Date Diameter Depth Water Table Sample Depth Vol Purged Comments

(mm) (m bgl) (m bgl) (m bgl) (L)

Wetland BoresBH24A


16-17/07/2019 50 12.42 1.86 11 72 Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; productive

BH24B


16-17/07/2019 50 3.03 1.83 3 P to bottom Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; turbid

BH25A


16-17/07/2019 50 9.51 2.19 8.5 48 Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; productive; samples clear

BH25B


16-17/07/2019 50 2.83 2.17 2.8 P to bottom Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; turbid

C-Cell BoresBH2 Moderate - rapid recharge

19/03/2019 100 11.56 1.26 10.5 130 Partly purged - pump motor failed; sampled 19 Mar; milky turbid

17/07/2019 100 11.56 0.87 10.5 240 Purged/sampled 17 Jul; clear early, becoming milky turbid as pumped

BH14A Slow recharge rate

18-19/03/2018 50 24.35 8.97 23.5 P to bottom Purged 18 Mar: sampled with bailer 19 Mar; slightly turbid; H2S

17/07/2019 50 24.35 8.53 P to bottom Access issues; purged am and sampled pm 17 Jul; H2S odour; mod turbid

BH15A Rapid recharge

19/03/2019 50 29.67 15.33 29.0 Nil Not purged - pump motor failed; sampled 19 Mar with bailer; clear

16-17/07/2019 50 29.68 15.06 28.5 96 Purged/sampled 17 Jul; turbid; H2S odour; surrounded by rubbish

BH15B Temporary perched aquifer - rainfall recharge only

18-19/03/2018 50 13.62 13.18 N/A N/A Insufficient water to sample

16-17/07/2019 50 13.60 12.80 N/A N/A Insufficient water to sample; surrounded by garbage

BH18A Very little recharge

19/03/2019 50 34.69 34.02 34.5 P to bottom All water removed 19 Mar with bailer; very low recharge volume; grey-turbid

17/07/2019 50 34.88 34.32 34.5 P to bottom All water removed 17 Jul with bailer; very low recharge volume; grey, very turbid

P = purged B = Bottom Vac = Vacuumed


Appendix G: Site Photos 16/17 July 2019


SS1: Primary Leachate Pond

SS3 Primary Stormwater Pond and Spillway

SS4: Primary Leachate Pond – Seepage Pit

SS5: Primary Stormwater Pond Drain


SS6: CRT Upstream Reference Site

Marsh Creek SS7: CRT Downstream Site

SS9: C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond SS8: C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond Seepage Pit

SS14: Secondary Stormwater Pond Seepage Pit


SS2: Secondary Stormwater Pond SS10: C-Cell Main Leachate Pond

SS11: C-Cell Main Leachate Pond Seepage Pit

BH1: Leachate Holding Pond Bore BH2: North-western Downgradient Bore

BH7: PLP Downgradient Bore BH10A, 10B: Near Cell 9 Bores (old) (18 March)


BH10C, 10D: Near Cell 9 Bores (29 May) BH12A, 12B: Irrigation Area Bores

BH13: Southern Upgradient Reference Bore BH14A, 14B: C-Cell South-western Bores

BH15A, 15B: C-Cell Western Bores BH18A, 18B: Eastern Upgradient Reference Bore

BH19: C-Cell Leachate Pond Western Bore BH21: North-eastern Upgradient Reference Bore (29 May)


BH22: North-eastern Upgradient Reference Bore (29 May) BH23: Near Cell 10 Bore

BH24A, 24B: Leachate Treatment Wetland Bores North BH25A, 25B: Leachate Treatment Wetland Bores South

Prepared for · Document Control Summary Document Revisions Report Title Copping RDS SGWMP Report,...

Documents

Transcript of Prepared for · Document Control Summary Document Revisions Report Title Copping RDS SGWMP Report,...